Surface Learning in Perspective

To start with surface or rote learning, it is the process of memorisation and reproduction of factual information (Biggs, 2003). Memorisation results in a type of surface learning which may be appropriate in some circumstances to focus on understanding and learn more effectively (Knestubb & Bond, 2009: p.179). Different studies highlight that surface learning is more commonly practised among Asian students, including Chinese (Wong, 2004; McMahon, 2011), Pakistani (Siddiqui, 2006) and Indian (Agarwal, 2009; Marginson, 2010). This perception led to a belief that Asian students lack the ability for critical thinking (Huang, 2008), that leads to the perception that they are rote learners- which, according to Forland (2006), can lead to numerous challenges in Western HE such as plagiarism (p.206) and this issues according to Hall (2008) is common among international students. Jin (2011) also agrees that over-reliance on rote learning is a stereotypical attribute of Chinese students. In fact, the way Chinese students learn stems from Confucianism – a learning culture in which teachers impart wisdom and knowledge to their students (Cooper, 2004: p.2), a contrary approach to IL. Indeed, Chan (1999) suggests that rote learning originates from the Chinese curriculum and teaching practices. In comparison Price and Skinner (2007) clarify that in a ‗tutorial system‘, students are often slow to take a lead in the discussion because tutors are only there to answer their questions, rather than teach them (p.158) while Lodish and Rodriguez (2004) found that lectures are key to students‘ learning yet alone are not sufficient to cause it. Ali (2005) and Islam (2009) argue that such a practice leads South Asian students towards dependency because it directs them to study for exams; and gives them a limited space for extensive learning. However the traditional reasoning about Asian students being rote learners is disputed by Tian (2008) who notes that in fact Chinese students are required to reproduce lots of information in their exam-centred educational system, which is why they memorise information to achieve high grades. Thus they cannot be classified as dependent learners (p.93).

51

A somewhat similar view that Asians are mostly exam-oriented learners is mentioned by Shen (2007), and as detailed by Trigwell et al., (2012). Others (e.g. Barron & Acrodia, 2002) advocate that teacher-centeredness is commonly perceived as a traditional way of learning and this trend is more common among Asian students (Sharma, 2012). This quality develops passive learning. However the overall majority of students, entering HE, are passive learners in their first years of study, as Kolb and Kolb (2005) note:

―Many students enter higher education conditioned by their previous educational experiences to be passive recipients of what they are taught‖ (p.209).

In practice learning for exams and surface learning is an issue among overall students in the beginning of studies. However, if learning is to be taken as a process based on teaching, then Kolb and Kolb‘s interpretation of “passive recipients” would be truly descriptive of HE Asian students only. Indeed rote learning is void of a systematic process that enables the learner to get information through interpretation or understanding (Li, 2004: p.9); rather, it is a strategy of repetition and storage of information. Thus the use of repetition and memorisation as a learning strategy has limited place in a modern HE system. Knowing a surface approach to learning is a way to reconsider one‘s own approach to learning rather than practicing it as a learning strategy.

Biggs (1999) believes that for Chinese students, rote learning is a way towards understanding. However it would be naïve to think that a rote learning strategy leads to understanding among a majority of students, as different approaches are largely apparent among different students of HE. Li (2004) clarifies that the difference between memorisation and IL activities is much clearer among Western students than Asians; and students‘ cultural beliefs might also influence the use of rote learning (p.12) - a strategy that has cultural and prior learning connections (Tian, 2008). Memorisation, a culturally acceptable practice among Asian students, is in fact repetition (Biggs, 1999; Haggis, 2003), which ultimately leads to understanding (Marton et al., 1996; Ding, 2007: p.288). Jiang and Smith (2009) reconfirm that memorisation is still a valid learning strategy among Asian students. The authors mention that although previous studies have considered the cultural norms that affect student learning strategies, they

52

are self-contradictory in relation to different student groups. Chinese students are neither surface learner nor are they reproductive learners; rather, they work to erase their mistakes by revisiting their assignments (Nield, 2007).

Surface learning, therefore, is extrinsically motivated by grades and represents a reproductive concept of learning (Garrison, et al., 1995) that involves the deletion or addition of concepts in the absence of integration with partial prior learning (Hay et al., 2008). Houghton (2004: p.9) summarises surface learning in the following words:

―Surface learning is the tacit acceptance of information and memorization as isolated and unlinked facts. It leads to superficial retention of material for examinations and does not promote understanding or long-term retention of knowledge and information.‖

Despite conflicting findings of various studies, Xie (2009) claims that the surface approach is still used by Asian students both at the beginning and final stages of studying English as a foreign language (p.238). Bari (2012) adds that surface learning is commonly noted among Pakistani students, which is the result of a tutorial system. Conversely the case in Western learning culture is different and surface-learning tactics cannot survive in the pressure of the IL environment. That is why the surface approach to learning, according to Nicholls (2002), can simply be utilised for completing tasks with a variety of methods, including memorising facts (p.31).

Valiente (2008), however, notes that not all memorisation can be considered surface learning or the lack of understanding (p.76). Most Asian students learn directly from their seniors where learning is not a type of memorisation but the transmission of knowledge, commonly called dependent learning. Yet, Cooper (2004) mentions that while surface learning is associated with mechanical memorisation, this approach can result in deep learning to achieve good results (p.306), based on the necessary reproduction of ideas.

Indeed for some Chinese students, like other Asians (Tan, 2011), the clear difference in their educational background, compared to Western students, rests with the surface approach to learning, one that Carroll and Appleton (2007) call a ‗didactic approach‘ (p.82). In fact, CHC students normally progress to understanding through rote learning

53

because deep learning requires it at some point (Nield, 2007: p.45; Valiente: p.77). At the same time, rote learning, as an alternate approach, is sometimes subject to time pressure and a fear of failure, caused by the cultural and communication difficulties leading to ‗passive‘, ‗obedient‘ and ‗non-critical‘ learners (Valiente: p.79). Thus an overall picture of Asian students‘ learning has been shaped in different patterns, revealing them using memorisation as a tool to deep and IL. To agree with the above research findings, the issue of learning approach in the UK is one way to determine students‘ ways of learning; however in reality it merely builds a process towards learning in context.